An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[Maren]

To b&wpac4,

Your comment is incorrect, we are discussing the availability of gay/heterosexual books in the Citizens Advice example I have given. Can you comment in the issue please.

The business is selling books just as the hotel’s business is to sell rooms, however whilst the gay bookshop doesn’t have to cater for the type of book heterosexuals want, the hotel has to cater for the type of room the homosexuals want. See the prejudice?

No. The difference is that they allow heterosexuals to rent any room but only allow homosexuals to rent particular rooms (those rooms where they will not be sharing a bed). In the bookstore analogy it would only be similar if the heterosexual bookstore, while they allowed gays to buy some of the books, had a section of books that they refused to sell to homosexuals.

 

[b&wpac4]

To b&wpac4,

Your comment is incorrect, we are discussing the availability of gay/heterosexual books in the Citizens Advice example I have given. Can you comment in the issue please.

The business is selling books just as the hotel’s business is to sell rooms, however whilst the gay bookshop doesn’t have to cater for the type of book heterosexuals want, the hotel has to cater for the type of room the homosexuals want. See the prejudice?

DO THE LAWS WHERE THE HOTEL EXISTS PROHIBIT THEM FROM OFFERING SHARED ROOMS ONLY TO MARRIED COUPLES? IF THE ANSWER IS YES, THEY CANNOT DELCINE SERVICE TO A HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE.

IF THE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT THEM FROM DECLINING SHARED ROOMS TO NON-MARRIED COUPLES, DOES THE HOTEL ONLY DECLINE SHARED ROOMS TO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES? IF THE ANSWER IS YES, THEY ARE DECLINING TO A SPECIFIC SET OF CLIENTS BUT NOT APPLYING THE RULE TO EVERYBODY. THEY CANNOT DO THIS.

 

[Skaloop]

To B&wpac4,

Yes I do. But its business is selling books just as the hotel’s business is to sell rooms, however whilst the gay bookshop doesn’t have to cater for the type of book heterosexuals want, the hotel has to cater for the type of room the homosexuals want. See the prejudice?

A business can cater to whichever demographic it wants. Any business can. But it can't refuse service to people who aren't part of that demographic. The Christian hotel is free to cater to heterosexuals, but it cannot deny service to homosexuals. Just like the gay bookstore is free to cater to homosexuals, but cannot deny service to heterosexuals.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

If it didn't refuse a double room to a straight couple, then it is not equivalent.

You are still thinking of the hotel with the Christian owner. Try and keep up. The gay hotel advertises exclusively for gay men only, so it discriminates against not only straights but women as well. SO it discriminates on the grounds of sex and sexuality. Why hasn’t it been shut down? I mean don’t gte me wrong I believe it should be allowed to function as the owner sees fit, but not if Christian owners are penalised by gays on account of their faith, that’s gay bigotry, prejudice and discrimination.

 

[b&wpac4]

To Psudopod,

You are still thinking of the hotel with the Christian owner. Try and keep up. The gay hotel advertises exclusively for gay men only, so it discriminates against not only straights but women as well. SO it discriminates on the grounds of sex and sexuality. Why hasn’t it been shut down? I mean don’t gte me wrong I believe it should be allowed to function as the owner sees fit, but not if Christian owners are penalised by gays on account of their faith, that’s gay bigotry, prejudice and discrimination.

Ok, seriously, I'm getting really frustrated with this. They are not discriminating unless they refuse service. If they don't refuse service, they are not discriminating. I can't make this any clearer. They can cater to whoever they want, but unless you show that they refused service to heterosexuals and/or women, then you fail.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

The Supreme Court disagrees noting that marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Should people of color be denied the right to become doctors just because of the color of their skin?
Should Mormons be denied the protections of the second amendment just because of their religion?

What you are advocating is the denial of equal rights to a minority group solely because they are a minority group. And that is no different form such atrocities as segregation or Jim Crow or the denial of Suffrage




No one is saying that because you belong to some minority group they don’t like that you cannot become a doctor. Yet gays are denied equal rights and equal protection because they belong to a minority group some people don’t like.

All you are doing here is saying that discrimination is bad when it happens to you but it is somehow a good thing when you discriminate against others



Gee I guess those black people in Alabama should have just dealt with sacrifices required by segregation

are you bigbadwlf?


You post exactly like him. Was wondering...

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Marrage's requirement and special attributes are assessed by the cultures in which they are constructed.

The only thing that makes it special in YOUR eyes is YOUR cultural standards. Such standards are geographcally, and culturally constructed and are not subject to your special requirements.

Life works exactly how you think it does not.

interesting, cause I remember Prop 8 being passed. Looks like our form of culture is more important than you think

Are the laws there such that you are not allowed to deny people a room based on gender, race, orientation, and the like? If so, the hotel broke the law. You must follow the law.

exactly, and DOMA is part of that law... Remember, your the ones who promoting something that is illegal. So I don't think that argument works for you.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

No, the law is not becoming discriminatory, it is equal. Things are much simpler than you are trying to make it.

That’s just your mere opinion, however I have shown you to be wrong in what I have presented. The law is becoming more and more bigoted prejudice and discriminatory against ‘heterosexuals’

Yes, they can. They can even only advertise in "heterosexual" publications. What they cannot do is refuse to provide the same books (service) to homosexuals that they provide to heterosexuals.

Nope, the hotel provides rooms and the bookshop provides books. A homosexual book in such a gay bookshop no more provides than two single rooms for a gay couple in a hotel.

So why cant a hotel say it is Christian and offer rooms shared rooms for married couples but single rooms for homosexuals?

Because it is offering a service for Christians that it is not offering to others

You are just proving to every neutral reader how anti-Christian the whole gay agenda is. The gay bookshop and gay hotel are offering a gay service exclusively catering for gays, why shouldn’t a Christian hotel do the same? Because gays say no? No wonder there still is homophobia, with such selfish and intolerant ideas no wonder.

To take this to your hotel claim, it appears the hotel owner would have been within his rights if he had a written rule that required people to be married or in a civil partnership to get a room where they would share a bed. Instead, he was breaking the law because he was treating married by one standard and gays, regardless of if they had a civil partnership or not, by a different standard.

No because if you read the Citizens Advice the hotel owner can not do what you are suggesting but in the light of the bookshop example the gay hotel probably can.

 

[Polycarp1]

To Polycarp1,

Not sure you can show that ‘gays are evil’ occurs very often if at all. Rather a slur that unless you can show some evidence I would appreciate that withdrawn.
Also if one believes life starts at conception, rather an easy thing to argue as no life develops without it, it is rather a good argument. If no-one proposed abortion I suspect that abortion is murder wouldn’t need to be claimed.
I think its healthy that the big issues can be debated

I agree with you that it's healthy to debat4 the big issues -- something we can thank Erwin, Lee, and now Paul for insisting on. As for the rest of it, it was said more than slightly tongue-in-cheek -- but how many threads have you seen head in one of those four (or five) directions despite being started on a completely different topic?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

No. The difference is that they allow heterosexuals to rent any room but only allow homosexuals to rent particular rooms

that’s right whereas the gay bookshop allows the heterosexual to buy homosexual books but cant provide heterosexual books. The homosexual book is no more use to the heterosexual than the single room to a gay couple. See the prejudice?
In fact the homosexual can buy the single room, so there is no prejudice in that respect, the homosexual wants the room to be able to sleep with the other gay, and whatever else. See the prejudice?

 

[b&wpac4]

To Maren,

that’s right whereas the gay bookshop allows the heterosexual to buy homosexual books but cant provide heterosexual books. The homosexual book is no more use to the heterosexual than the single room to a gay couple. See the prejudice?
In fact the homosexual can buy the single room, so there is no prejudice in that respect, the homosexual wants the room to be able to sleep with the other gay, and whatever else. See the prejudice?

No, because it exists only within your mind.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Even the highest gay estimates of the gay percentage of the population is about 11% yet most of the posters here seem to be gay. If even in a liberal state like California the split over 'gay marriage' is 51-49 this section on ethics is hardly representative of the most liberal, its ultra liberal and pro-gay dominated.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

No, because it exists only within your mind.

rather in yours as I have presented the evidence and the reasoned argument.
Perhaps you could say why the gay bookshop can limit the type of book provided based on sexuality whereas the hotel owner is allowed to offer the type of room based on sexuality? (and even thats not quite true as the hotel owner doesn't want to limit the type of room to a homosexual. but to a same sex couple)

 

[Maren]

To Maren,

That’s just your mere opinion, however I have shown you to be wrong in what I have presented. The law is becoming more and more bigoted prejudice and discriminatory against ‘heterosexuals’

It is not my opinion, it is what is clearly stated from what you posted.

Nope, the hotel provides rooms and the bookshop provides books. A homosexual book in such a gay bookshop no more provides than two single rooms for a gay couple in a hotel.

Sure, the hotel offers rooms and the bookstore provides books. So, for a hotel to not offer all rooms to everyone equally is the same as a bookstore that does not provide all books to everyone -- both are discriminatory. The law states that all services (be they rooms, books, or whatever) must be supplied equally to all customers.

So why cant a hotel say it is Christian and offer rooms shared rooms for married couples but single rooms for homosexuals?

For the same reason a gay bookstore cannot refuse to sell "gay" books to gays but only books that are not "gay" to non-gays.

You are just proving to every neutral reader how anti-Christian the whole gay agenda is. The gay bookshop and gay hotel are offering a gay service exclusively catering for gays, why shouldn’t a Christian hotel do the same?

I've not seen you make any such claims. I've seen you complain about a gay bookshop and gay hotel advertise they are gay but I've seen no claims, much less evidence, that they refuse service (or do not supply all books or rooms) to non-gays. Further, you claimed that this hotel did say it is "Christian", even having webpages speaking of Christianity. Notice, no one has complained about his marketing toward Christians (which is the same as the gay businesses marketing toward gays) merely his refusal to rent the same rooms to gays that he rents to non-gays.

That you can't seem to grasp the difference between a business oriented to a particular group but that equally provides their services to all and another business that doesn't equally provide services based on sexual orientation of it's customers is your problem.

Because gays say no? No wonder there still is homophobia, with such selfish and intolerant ideas no wonder.

No, because this is what the law says -- a law passed by a heterosexual majority.

No because if you read the Citizens Advice the hotel owner can not do what you are suggesting but in the light of the bookshop example the gay hotel probably can.

No. Reread the citizens advice -- it states that he can rent some rooms to married only so long as he provides the same rooms to civil partnerships -- and then he can deny the rooms to non-married and non-civil partnershipped. What he cannot do is rent one set of rooms to married couples and refuse them to all gays, regardless of whether they are in a civil partnership.

 

[Psudopod]

To Maren,
No. The difference is that they allow heterosexuals to rent any room but only allow homosexuals to rent particular rooms
that’s right whereas the gay bookshop allows the heterosexual to buy homosexual books but cant provide heterosexual books. The homosexual book is no more use to the heterosexual than the single room to a gay couple. See the prejudice?
In fact the homosexual can buy the single room, so there is no prejudice in that respect, the homosexual wants the room to be able to sleep with the other gay, and whatever else. See the prejudice?

Okay, ignore the bookshop for a moment. Say I have a hotel. It has single and double rooms. A white couple come to stay and want a double room, so I rent it to them. Next week an interracial couple and want a double room. I say it is against my beliefs to allow a black man to sleep with a white woman, but I can let them have a twin room. Is my behaviour discrimatory?

 

[Maren]

To Maren,

that’s right whereas the gay bookshop allows the heterosexual to buy homosexual books but cant provide heterosexual books. The homosexual book is no more use to the heterosexual than the single room to a gay couple. See the prejudice?

What prejudice? The gay bookstore is required to sell any of their books, regardless of topic, to anyone that requests them (regardless of sexual orientation). In the same way, the hotel owner is required to rent his rooms without regard to sexual orientation, though he can discriminate based on if the couple is married/civil partnership. It is not possible for them to sell a book they do not have, much like the hotel owner cannot provide rooms in the Ritz-Carlton since those rooms are not in his hotel.

In fact the homosexual can buy the single room, so there is no prejudice in that respect, the homosexual wants the room to be able to sleep with the other gay, and whatever else. See the prejudice?

Again, there is. If he provides some rooms but not others based on sexual orientation, it would be the same as the bookstore saying some books they carry cannot be sold based on sexual orientation.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1,

I agree with you that it's healthy to debat4 the big issues -- something we can thank Erwin, Lee, and now Paul for insisting on. As for the rest of it, it was said more than slightly tongue-in-cheek -- but how many threads have you seen head in one of those four (or five) directions despite being started on a completely different topic?

Well that’s another point. The point is it is alright having a healthy discussion but if ‘gays are evil’ isn’t something that is sad it is at least rather unhealthy to suggest it. I mean if ‘gays are evil’ was a frequent statement then presumably that wouldn’t be against the guidelines.

Not sure how it could all be seen a tongue in cheek either, the abortion is murder is rather easily demonstrated argument.

How about the current discussion, are you at a tangent perhaps?

 

[Maren]

Even the highest gay estimates of the gay percentage of the population is about 11% yet most of the posters here seem to be gay. If even in a liberal state like California the split over 'gay marriage' is 51-49 this section on ethics is hardly representative of the most liberal, its ultra liberal and pro-gay dominated.

No, just many of us that are heterosexual understand discrimination.

To Maren,
rather in yours as I have presented the evidence and the reasoned argument.
Perhaps you could say why the gay bookshop can limit the type of book provided based on sexuality whereas the hotel owner is allowed to offer the type of room based on sexuality? (and even thats not quite true as the hotel owner doesn't want to limit the type of room to a homosexual. but to a same sex couple)

The gay bookstore can limit the type of book based on sexuality for the same reason a Christian bookstore can limit the type of books they sell based on religion -- it is the business model of the company. The difference is, they cannot base their decision on whether or not to sell their to an individual based on that person's religion or sexual orientation.

In the case of the hotel owner, he is not limiting his rooms based on the sexual orientation of the rooms. And while that sounds kind of silly, I suppose he could have Christian rooms that have Bible verses, Christian paintings and murals, etc. Or "heterosexual rooms" that depict opposite sex couples getting married and other pictures of happy heterosexual couples. Nothing in the law states that he cannot do such things. All the law states is that even if he has "heterosexual rooms" or "Christian rooms" that he must rent the rooms to anyone that seeks to rent them regardless or their sexual orientation or religion.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

What prejudice? The gay bookstore is required to sell any of their books, regardless of topic, to anyone that requests them (regardless of sexual orientation).

No not regardless of topic. Please re-read the passages.

Again, there is. If he provides some rooms but not others based on sexual orientation, it would be the same as the bookstore saying some books they carry cannot be sold based on sexual orientation.

Sorry but you have your own different argument there, and not the prejudiced one I have shown. . The hotel is not refusing a room on the basis of sexual orientation, the homosexuals were offered a room, they just were not the room they wanted. Similarly the gay bookshop is also offering the heterosexual a book it just isnt the book they want.

 

[b&wpac4]

To Maren,
No not regardless of topic. Please re-read the passages.


Sorry but you have your own different argument there, and not the prejudiced one I have shown. . The hotel is not refusing a room on the basis of sexual orientation, the homosexuals were offered a room, they just were not the room they wanted. Similarly the gay bookshop is also offering the heterosexual a book it just isnt the book they want.

I'm done discussing this with you. It's quite clear you have no intention on actually understanding this and simply pushing your agenda.